Thurrock Council (202329491)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329491

Thurrock Council

31 July 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:

a.     Response to the resident’s dissatisfaction about the condition of the property following a mutual exchange.

b.     Response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety, and its handling of repairs to the kitchen door.

c.      Response to a rat infestation in the property.

d.     Handling of repairs to a sewage pipe.

e.     Response to the resident’s concerns about heating, and the landlord’s handling of associated repairs.

f.        Response to the resident’s reports about damp, mould, and condensation, and the landlord’s handling of associated repairs.

g.     Handling of repairs to the front door and the bathroom door.

2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping and information management.

Background

3. The resident became a secure tenant of the landlord in February 2022, following a mutual exchange. The tenancy ended in March 2024. The landlord has told the Ombudsman that the property is a 1-bedroom bedsit flat. The resident has explained that when she accepted the tenancy, she believed the property to be a 1-bedroom flat. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that the living room may have been partitioned off to create a separate bedroom prior to the resident’s occupation.
4. The resident told the Ombudsman that she has complex mental health needs, which include depression, anxiety, and agoraphobia. The landlord has stated that it was aware of the resident’s mental health needs. The resident’s husband moved into the property sometime after the mutual exchange. The resident’s husband was of limited mobility.
5. The resident emailed her local member of parliament (MP) on 6 October 2023, expressing dissatisfaction with the condition of the property following a mutual exchange. The resident explained that the property was not suitable to live in due to a rat infestation, mould, and because there were no internal doors. The resident explained that her living conditions had contributed to a rapid decline in her mental health and she was having suicidal thoughts. She said she was being denied much needed support from her carer, as there was nowhere for them to sleep due to the mould in the bedroom. The MP wrote to the landlord on 18 October 2023, asking it to respond to the resident. The landlord logged the resident’s concerns as a stage 1 complaint.
6. After the landlord carried out a “welfare visit” on 24 October 2023, the resident sent 2 emails to the landlord, clarifying the complaint. The resident explained that she had attempted suicide earlier in the year and her living conditions had been a contributory factor in relation to this. She suggested that she would not “survive another winter” living in the property. The resident clarified:

a.     There was sewage leaking into the garden through a cracked sewage pipe.

b.     There was a leak under the sink from a pipe chewed by rats.

c.      There was mould growing in the bedroom, in the hallway, and by the front door. The landlord had rejected previous recommendations to replace the front door.

d.     There was no form of heating in the bedroom, which was unusable due to the mould.

e.     The door seal was cracked and broken on the front door, resulting in water ingress, wet flooring, and mould.

7. The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 1 November 2023. The landlord said it was always disappointing to learn when services provided failed to meet resident expectations. It updated the resident on the action that it had taken in response to her complaint.
8. The resident responded to the stage 1 response on 7 November 2023. The resident said the landlord had not addressed all of her concerns and it had provided no resolutions. She added that:

a.     She had not denied access to any of its contractors and this was not a justifiable reason for leaving her “living with a garden full of sewage”. She reminded the landlord that she had asked it several times to update her contact details.

b.     She had paid several pest control companies to eradicate the rats. This had been unsuccessful and the rats were continuing to cause damage to the property.

c.      The front door had been inspected twice but despite recommendations from its contractor, the landlord had not agreed to replace the door.

d.     Paramedics had removed the bathroom door after she tried to take her own life, which she attributed, in part, to her disgust with her own living conditions.

e.     The landlord should assess the safety of the property.

9. The landlord emailed the resident on 9 November 2023, asking if she wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The resident confirmed that she did. The landlord and resident exchanged several emails between 22 November 2023 and 29 November 2023, agreeing the scope of the complaint. The landlord sent the formal stage 2 acknowledgement on 1 December 2023.
10. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 3 January 2024. The landlord said:

a.     When the resident changed her telephone number, the new number was not updated on its contractor system, which had prevented its contractor from making contact. It upheld the resident’s complaint about this and committed to investigating what went wrong with its IT team, as this was an automated process.

b.     It apologised for the confusion about its approach to managing and assisting with the pest infestation. It had committed to treating the property for vermin if the problem remained unresolved after it had repaired the sewage pipe. However, no issues with vermin were reported following the repair. It would monitor and arrange pest control if there were new sightings of vermin.

c.      The resident had reported the front door not closing properly in November 2022. It had attended as an emergency to overhaul the door and leave it locking securely. It was initially recommended that the door be renewed, but upon review it was determined that the repair was sufficient.

d.     A works order had been raised in October 2023, to renew the bathroom door. After the resident said she would replace the door herself, the job was cancelled. It had since reviewed the reason for the repair. It agreed to replace the door at no cost to the resident.

e.     Except for the kitchen and the bathroom doors, all other internal doors were the resident’s responsibility to repair and maintain.

f.        No concerns had been identified during past inspections, about the heating provision. Since the resident’s complaint, a works order had been raised to replace the bedroom radiator.

g.     The cause of the mould was identified on 6 November 2023, to be “condensation and cold spotting, due to the heating and ventilation not being effectively maintained”. Follow-on works had been scheduled for 3 January 2024, after the property had dried out. A dehumidifier had been provided to assist with this.

h.     Its staff would have considered any potential health, safety, and fire hazards, each time they attended.

11. The resident told the Ombudsman on 23 July 2024, that the landlord should pay compensation to resolve the complaint.

Jurisdiction

12. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme).
13. Paragraph 42.c of the Schemes states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising.
14. The resident did not formally raise a complaint about the condition of the property until 19 months after the exchange was completed. Therefore, in accordance with the Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s dissatisfaction about the condition of the property following a mutual exchange, falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
15. Regarding the remaining complaint elements, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s actions between 6 October 2022 and 3 January 2024. This being 12 months prior to the formal complaint being made, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. However, this report also references events outside of this timeframe, where relevant to the resolution of the substantive complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

16. The landlord had a statutory obligation under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 (as amended), to ensure that the property remained fit for habitation throughout the lifetime of the tenancy. A property should not contain any deficiency that might give rise to a hazard which interferes with, or puts at risk, the health or safety, or even the lives, of the occupants.
17. The landlord was under no contractual or statutory obligation to replace any item if it was possible to carry out a repair. It was not required to carry out improvements to the property unless it was required to do so by law.
18. The landlord provided a responsive repair service which was contracted out via a main repair’s contractor. As a result of this, its contractor was expected to liaise with residents directly in respect of works orders and the management of repairs. This included arranging appointments, progressing works via in-house operatives or subcontractors, and ensuring that its residents were kept fully informed of the status of repair works. For the purposes of this report, the Ombudsman will refer to the landlord and its main contractor interchangeably.
19. According to the landlord’s repairs policy:

a.     The landlord will:

1. Maintain the structure and exterior of the property to a good standard of repair. It will also keep any installations provided by it, in good working order. For example, the pipes, drains, soil pipes, and entrance doors.
2. Provide an additional level of service for vulnerable residents, which included carrying out some repairs which may usually be the resident’s responsibility.
3. Carry out emergency repairs in 24 hours, urgent repairs in 5 working days, routine repairs in 20 working days, and batch repairs according to a programme. An emergency repair included unstoppable leaks from a pipe, a blocked drain, or a leaking drain. An urgent repair included containable leaks from a pipe, a blocked drain, or a leaking drain.
4. Review all reported cases of mould or damp. In severe cases of damp or mould, the landlord will complete any identified repairs as a routine repair. Minor mould growth caused by condensation and attributed to housekeeping, would be addressed under a batch programme.
5. Complete repairs caused by breakage and neglect, on a resident’s behalf, as a recharge. Where a recharge is not accepted, the landlord will only complete repairs that are essential to maintaining the safety and integrity of the property.

b.     The resident will maintain and repair internal doors, except where a door is unsafe.

20. The landlord’s damp and mould policy stated that the landlord would investigate and determine the cause of damp, mould, and condensation in its properties. New reports of damp and mould would be inspected within 5 working days. Any identified follow-on works would be raised and attended to within 15 working days, on the same works order.
21. The landlord did not have a pest control policy. The landlord told the Ombudsman that its residents were responsible for dealing with pests unless a pest had gained access to the property as a result of disrepair. But the landlord would consider a resident’s ability to address any pest issues as a result of any vulnerabilities.

The landlord’s response the resident’s concerns about fire safety, and its handling of repairs to the kitchen door.

22. The resident’s main concern about fire safety related to the absence of internal doors within the property. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify that the property had no internal doors. If this was the case, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have identified this during its tenancy audit in September 2022. Notwithstanding this, the landlord had no legal obligation to ensure that all rooms were fitted with internal doors. However, taking a risk-based approach, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would always be best practice to ensure there was a door on a kitchen.
23. According to the landlord’s property specifications, the kitchen door was a FD30 fire rated door, which was encouraging. This model of door would be designed to resist flames and smoke passing through, for at least 30 minutes. However, to afford maximum protection, the door needed to be fitted correctly and be capable of being kept fully closed. Therefore, having fitted a fire door, the landlord had a responsibility to resolve any defects in a timely manner.
24. The resident told the landlord on 19 June 2023, that the door to the kitchen did not close. The landlord made an appointment to attend to this within expected timescales for a routine repair. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, given that this was a fire door and the resident lived in a block of flats, it would have been more appropriate to have raised an urgent job.
25. The resident did not provide access on 11 July 2023, so the appointment was rescheduled to 21 July 2023. However, upon attending, the resident asked for the job to be rescheduled. This was unfortunate, as this caused unavoidable delay in the landlord completing the works.
26. The landlord left a voicemail for the resident on 27 July 2023, setting a new date for the appointment. When the landlord attended on 2 August 2023, the resident was not at home. In line with best practice, the landlord left the resident a calling card. When the resident did not make contact, the job was later cancelled, “pending further contact from the resident”. This left the matter unresolved, which is troubling given that this was a fire rated door.
27. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s main repairs contractor relied heavily on voicemails to schedule appointments, which the resident did not consistently receive. The reason for this is considered later under record keeping, however, this was a common theme throughout all of the complaint points. While it is accepted that the landlord’s contractor did always make several attempts to gain access, works were often cancelled “pending further contact from the resident”. There was little evidence of the landlord or its contractor considering the risk or impact to the resident and the property, when it cancelled jobs. This was a concern.
28. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there were occasions when it was unreasonable for the landlord to place the onus on the resident to get back in contact once a job had been cancelled. This was of particular concern where the nature of the repair had the potential to give rise to a risk or hazards. It would have been best practice for the landlord to have sent the resident some form of written communication in advance, or upon cancellation of a works order, so the resident was aware. This did not routinely happen, which led to a lack of clarity for the resident, in relation to the status of some of the repairs.
29. A new works order was raised on 1 November 2023, after the resident again reported that the kitchen door did not close properly. While a job was raised as routine works, the landlord endeavoured to complete the work within 5 working days, which was encouraging. However, an unidentified occupant sent the landlord away, adding further unavoidable delay.
30. The landlord left a voicemail for the resident the following day, asking the resident to rebook the appointment. There is no evidence that the landlord attempted to communicate with the resident in any other way, after receiving no response from the resident. The job was then cancelled, “pending further contact from the resident”. Again, this left the matter unresolved.
31. The landlord ought to have identified that the kitchen door repairs remained outstanding during its stage 2 complaint investigation. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the matter for the resident.
32. In summary, landlord had several opportunities to repair the kitchen door, but the resident either did not provide access or the landlord was sent away. While this offers some mitigation for delays completing the works, given that this was a fire rated door, the landlord ought to have taken some decisive action to complete the repair when access became an issue. However, it is possible that the resident was not always aware that appointments had been booked due to an over reliance on booking appointments via voicemail. The landlord did not repair the kitchen door within a timely manner. The landlord missed an opportunity during the complaint process to identify that the repair was outstanding. Consequently, the landlord did not put things right for the resident.
33. On balance, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen door.

The landlord’s response to a rat infestation in the property

34. The resident told the Ombudsman that there had been an issue with rats since the beginning of the tenancy. However, it was not possible to verify this from the evidence seen. The first mention of an issue with vermin was on 26 June 2023, when the landlord was carrying out repairs in the bathroom following a leak. The job notes reference damage to the bath overflow pipe, which the landlord thought may have been chewed. Although the overflow pipe was repaired, the pipe began leaking again a week later. Upon inspection, the landlord noted that rodents had chewed the pipe, confirming that there was an issue with vermin in the property. If the landlord thought it was the resident’s responsibility to arrange pest control, it ought to have made this clear to the resident at the time, so she could arrange this.
35. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord ought to have taken steps itself, to have investigated whether there was a defect that was allowing the vermin to access the property. In the event that the landlord did identify a defect, it could have taken steps to remedy this, and then baited to eradicate the pests. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated if there was a defect, or of it giving pest control advice to the resident. This was inappropriate and left the property vulnerable to ongoing damage from vermin.
36. The resident did not raise concerns about rats again until she wrote to the MP on 6 October 2023. The resident stated that the property was infested with rats despite her paying to bait the property several times. She said rats were living in the walls, in the kitchen, and in the garden. The property had been repeatedly flooded due to rats chewing through pipework. Her security cameras no longer worked because the rats had chewed through wires embedded in the walls. The resident said she suffered from extreme paranoia and needed the cameras to help her feel safe. It is noted that the MP did not bring the resident’s concerns to the landlord’s attention until 18 October 2023.
37. The Ombudsman was encouraged to note that the landlord reacted quickly and attended the property on 24 October 2023, to carry out a “welfare visit”. This shows that the landlord was treating the resident’s concerns with the seriousness they deserved. It has not been possible to verify all that was discussed or agreed during the welfare visit, from the evidence seen. However, the stage 1 response stated that the landlord committed to discussing the resident’s case with the local authority safeguarding team. It also agreed to contact the resident on a weekly basis to check on her wellbeing. This was positive in view of the resident’s vulnerabilities, but the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord delivered on these commitments. This is a concern.
38. In the stage 1 response, the landlord committed to arranging a pest control assessment if the infestation was not resolved after it had completed the outstanding repairs. However, until the stage 2 response, it would have been unclear to the resident that this meant repairs to the sewage pipe. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident after the sewage pipe was repaired, to check that the infestation had gone. This was unreasonable, given the landlord’s commitment.
39. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, since the landlord had accepted that vermin were likely to be accessing the property through the broken sewage pipe, it should have baited regardless of any new sightings. Even if the broken sewage pipe did provide the only entrance point, the vermin still needed to be baited inside the property to fully eradicate the problem. It is unclear if the rat infestation was remedied prior to the resident terminating her tenancy.
40. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a rat infestation fell short. The landlord missed several opportunities to arrange a pest control assessment and baiting. This led to the issue remaining unresolved for an unreasonable length of time, during which the resident was caused significant disruption. The landlord’s inaction was likely to have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. When considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to a rat infestation in the property.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a sewage pipe

41. The resident reported a blocked and overflowing drain in the garden on 14 April 2023. The landlord attended the same day, in line with its repairs policy. It has not been possible to verify if the landlord was able to contain the leak, however this is assumed.
42. Following this, a close circuit television (CCTV) survey of the pipe and follow-on work was arranged for 17 May 2023, which suggests that the landlord was treating the repair as routine works. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the follow-on work should have been arranged in a timelier manner. This would have been consistent with the landlord’s repairs policy, which indicates that containable leaks will be treated as urgent works.
43. It was unfortunate that the resident did not provide access for the CCTV survey on 17 May 2023. This delayed completion of the repair. However, it has not been possible to verify from the evidence seen if this appointment had been prearranged with the resident.
44. The Ombudsman notes that the job was cancelled on 25 June 2023, because there had been “no response from the resident”. The job notes stated that the works should be reraised when the resident called back. There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident that it had cancelled the works order. This left the matter unresolved, which is troubling given the nature of the repair. The landlord ought to have considered what additional support it might have offered the resident, to enable the works to be completed, in view of her known vulnerabilities.
45. The Ombudsman has considered the resident’s suggestion that the job could have been completed regardless of her availability, by “walking straight around” to the garden. However, the Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to access a property or garden to complete work, unless it was required to do so in the event of an emergency. While the job was urgent, there was no evidence to suggest that works needed to be completed as an emergency.
46. Following the stage 1 complaint, the resident emailed the landlord on 24 October 2024, clarifying that there was still an unresolved issue with the sewage pipe, which was causing sewage to leak out into the garden. The landlord responded by raising a works order to renew the damaged pipe, as routine works. It is unclear why the landlord did not address the repair in a timelier manner, in accordance with its repairs policy. The job was completed on 22 November 2023.
47. In summary, works orders were raised as routine works, but should have been raised with greater priority, in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord had the opportunity to repair the sewage pipe but was delayed from completing the repair due to issues with access. While this may offer some mitigation, it is unclear if the resident was aware of appointments made. Given the nature of the repair, the landlord ought to have taken some decisive action to complete the repair when access became an issue. The landlord did not repair the sewage pipe in a timely manner.
48. On balance, there was failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the sewage pipe, which delayed resolution of the matter for the resident, causing her distress and inconvenience. When considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a sewage pipe.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about heating, and the landlord’s handling of associated repairs.

49. The resident first reported having no heating in the bedroom during a meeting with the landlord at the property on 24 October 2023. Later that day, the resident clarified that on the few occasions she had slept in the bedroom, she had woken up cold and soaking wet. It is understood that there was no radiator or other form of heating in the bedroom.
50. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, when the living room was partitioned off prior to the resident’s occupation, provision ought to have been made to install a radiator in the new bedroom. It has not been possible to verify if the former tenant or the landlord carried out this alteration. But the Ombudsman is troubled that the landlord missed 3 opportunities to identify the lack of heating in the new bedroom as a potential issue, namely during the mutual exchange inspection, at the new tenant visit, and during the tenancy audit.
51. Although the landlord did not immediately instruct a heating assessment, the landlord did raise a works order on 26 October 2023, to inspect for mould. This inspection was likely to have taken factors into consideration, such as the adequacy of the heating provision.
52. The landlord carried out a damp and mould survey on 6 November 2023. It is understood that the cause of the mould was identified to be “cold spotting and condensation, caused by inadequate heating and ventilation”. But it was 27 working days before the landlord arranged for its heating contractor to quote for a new radiator in the bedroom. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have progressed this in a timelier manner, given the presence of mould and in the knowledge that excess cold may constitute a hazard.
53. The landlord’s heating contractor phoned the resident the same day as it received the works order, to arrange an appointment to assess the scope of the works and enable it to provide a quotation. However, it was unable to reach the resident by phone. It is possible that this was because it did not have a correct telephone number for the resident due to the administration error. It is unclear what further attempts were made by the landlord to gain access, but access was not achieved until 14 December 2023.
54. The landlord has acknowledged that its heating contractor was slow to provide a quotation for the new radiator. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord ought to have chased its contractor for the quotation, if it did not receive this within expected timescales. However, it was positive that once the quotation was received on 3 January 2024, the landlord approved the works the following day and its heating contractor ordered the necessary parts.
55. The landlord’s heating contractor made several attempts to schedule an appointment to install the radiator between 4 January 2024 and 15 January 2024. However, no response was received from the resident until 18 January 2024. The resident refused the works because she said the landlord needed to complete other works first. It has not been possible to verify whether this additional delay was strictly necessary. There is no evidence of the landlord trying to rebook the appointment following this, which is a concern. However, it is accepted that by 16 February 2024, the resident had found alternative accommodation and from this date, she was reluctant to allow the landlord to complete any further works. It is understood that the radiator was not installed before the resident vacated the property.
56. In summary, the landlord missed several opportunities to identify that there was no form of heating in the bedroom prior to the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord responded appropriately following the resident’s complaint by raising an inspection. After identifying the need to install a radiator, there was avoidable delay in the landlord instructing its heating contractor and obtaining a quotation of works. This was likely to have caused the resident frustration. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, difficulties obtaining access to complete the job from January 2024 onwards, offered some mitigation for subsequent delays.
57. On balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about heating, and the landlord’s handling of associated repairs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp, mould, and condensation, and the landlord’s handling of associated repairs

58. The resident made several different reports about damp, mould, and condensation. The Ombudsman will assess the different reports under separate subheadings.

Leaks, water damage, and mould in the bathroom

59. The resident’s first report about mould was on 11 April 2023, following a leak in the bathroom from a blocked bath waste trap. The resident reported that the bath panel and the “casing” around the toilet was rotten and mouldy. The landlord responded in a timely manner, by raising a works order to inspect the bath panel on 2 May 2023. However, no outcome was communicated to the resident following the inspection, which left the resident uncertain as to how the matter would be resolved. This was unfair.
60. The resident chased the landlord twice for an update before it confirmed that a works order had been raised to repair the bath panel and the skirting board. It has not been possible to verify the priority of the job from the evidence seen.
61. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 May 2023, explaining that upon lifting the lino in the bathroom, she had found the floorboards to be rotten. The landlord emailed the resident the following day, confirming that it would address this on 8 June 2023. This was encouraging.
62. On attendance, the landlord identified damage to the floor, skirting board, bath panel, and the ducting behind the toilet pan, caused by water ingress. The job notes recommended that each of these components be replaced. The landlord attended on 26 June 2023 to complete the work. It was understandable that the landlord could not complete the work, after finding the floor wet. The landlord responded appropriately by checking for leaks. Upon investigation, a leak was identified from a damaged bath overflow hose, which the landlord thought may have been chewed. The damaged hose was replaced the same day, which was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
63. The resident emailed the landlord on 3 July 2023, stating that there was still a leak under the bath. The landlord attended within expected timescales under its repairs policy, identified that the overflow pipe on the bath waste had been chewed by vermin, and replaced the damage part.
64. Having allowed a reasonable period of time for the bathroom floor to dry out, the landlord attended on 10 July 2023, to repair the floor, skirting board, bath panel, and the ducting behind the toilet pan. However, the resident did not provide access, because she felt the floor was still wet. It is unclear if the landlord was permitted to check the floor itself. The landlord rescheduled the work to 18 July 2023, when the bathroom repairs were completed.
65. It took 67 working days for the landlord to remedy the leaks, water damage, and the mould in the bathroom. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was not unreasonable given the evolving nature of the repairs and the need for the room to adequately dry out before the work could be completed.

Damp and condensation around the windows

66. The resident emailed the landlord on 23 May 2023, reporting damp and condensation around the windows. She also mentioned that the former tenant had not left her any window keys. There is no evidence to suggest that the windows were locked shut. Nonetheless this was troubling, since inadequate ventilation can often be a contributory factor in cases of damp, condensation, and mould.
67. The landlord emailed the resident the following day, confirming that it had made an appointment to inspect the windows on 30 May 2023. It also said it was making enquiries about the window keys. The landlord’s response was both timely and appropriate. The resident later rearranged the appointment to 12 June 2023, because she had anxiety and needed her carer to be present. While this was understandable, this led to an unavoidable delay in the landlord inspecting the windows.
68. The resident did not provide access on 12 June 2023, which was unhelpful. The landlord then cancelled the inspection, “pending further contact from the resident”, which left the matter unresolved. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord ought to have considered what additional support it could have offered the resident, to enable the inspection to be completed. This would have been reasonable given the resident’s vulnerabilities and in view of the resident’s reports about damp, condensation, and mould.
69. The landlord raised a new inspection for the windows on 26 October 2023, following the landlord’s welfare visit. The landlord endeavoured to inspect the windows on 14 November 2023, which was within target timescales. However, the resident did not provide access, leading to further unavoidable delay. The resident later apologised for missing the appointment, on account of being unwell.
70. The landlord emailed the resident the following day to rebook the inspection for 22 November 2023, which was encouraging. However, on attending, the resident did not provide access again. This resulted in the landlord cancelling the job, “pending further resident contact”. In the Ombudsman’s view, given the evolving issues of damp and mould in the property by this stage, the landlord ought to have taken some decisive action to ensure that the windows were inspected.
71. It is reasonable to assume that the condition of the windows was considered during the landlord’s damp and mould inspection on 4 December 2023. However, this could not be verified from the evidence seen. It is unclear if the landlord provided the resident with any replacement window lock keys.
72. On balance, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should have done more to support the resident given her vulnerabilities, which may have led to the windows being inspected in a timelier manner.

Damp and mould in the bedroom, hallway, and by the front door.

73. While the resident told the Ombudsman that there was an issue with mould in the bedroom for several years, this could not be verified from the evidence seen. According to the landlord’s records, the resident first mentioned mould in the bedroom in her email to the MP on 6 October 2023, which was forwarded to the landlord on 18 October 2023. The resident said she had cleared the bedroom completely over the winter, as the walls and ceiling were covered in black mould. She had thrown away her bed, 3 mattresses, 8 bags of clothing, and some other items, as they had been ruined. She said she was having to sleep on the sofa, as the bedroom was unusable due to the mould.
74. Following the “welfare visit” on 24 October 2023, the resident sent pictures of the bedroom, showing the extent of the mould. She added that there was no form of heating in the bedroom. The flooring was cracking and peeling due to moisture in the room. She said there was a reoccurring issue with mould in the hallway and by the front door. The landlord responded appropriately by raising a timely damp and mould inspection.
75. The property was inspected on 6 November 2023. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the inspection report, which would have evidenced the full extent of the damp and mould and its next steps. However, it is understood that the landlord did identify the cause of the mould to be “cold spotting and condensation, caused by inadequate heating and ventilation”.
76. The landlord’s repair notes from 6 November 2023 state, that it was unable to treat the mould because “the room was soaking wet”. The ceiling also had a “belly”, which it suggested might point to an issue with water ingress from the property above. Having made this discovery, the landlord’s operative made appropriate recommendations, to complete a further survey and issue the resident with a dehumidifier. It was unfair that the landlord did not order or deliver the dehumidifier for 3 weeks, given that the room was reported to be “soaking wet”.
77. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord assessed the property for its continued fitness for occupation, pending completion of identified works. This is a concern given the photographs provided to this investigation, showing a build-up of black mould in the bedroom. There is also no evidence that the landlord risk assessed or considered the impact of the damp and mould on the resident’s mental health and wellbeing. This was particularly troubling, given that the resident had told the landlord how her living conditions had contributed to a significant decline in her mental health. The Ombudsman notes, that there is no mention of risk assessments in the landlord’s damp and mould policy or procedure notes.
78. The landlord raised a works order on 30 November 2023, to re-render around the frame of the front door, which was likely to have helped mitigate water ingress into the hallway. An appointment was made with the resident to repair this on 19 December 2023. It was unhelpful that the resident did not provide access.
79. The landlord’s repairs supervisor attempted to survey the property on 30 November 2023, to determine the extent of the damp and mould works required. However, the resident did not provide access until 4 December 2023. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the inspection report, which has restricted the Ombudsman’s ability to assess the reasonableness of the landlords next steps. However, it is noted that the landlord scheduled an appointment for 3 January 2024, to address the damp and mould. Aside from the new radiator, these works included a 3-stage mould treatment throughout the property and the installation of an airbrick in the bedroom. It was understandable that the property needed to dry out before the works could begin.
80. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 December 2023, expressing concern that the property would become wet again, now the dehumidifier had been collected. She also asked the landlord to confirm if she was expected to continue living in the property until the works were completed. The landlord responded 5 working days later, that there was no suggestion that the property was unfit for occupation. Nonetheless, it committed to making enquiries with its technical team, which was fair. But it is unclear from the evidence seen, if the landlord progressed this and if it updated the resident, which would have left the resident uncertain as to the outcome. This was unreasonable.
81. The resident told the landlord that she spent the proceeding weeks applying to every social housing provider across the country, to secure alternative accommodation. This is troubling and suggests the resident had lost complete trust in the landlord. Had the resident felt supported by the landlord, she may not have had to resort to this.
82. The landlord attended on 3 January 2024, to complete the damp and mould treatment and install the airbrick. The resident did not provide access, because she said she was unwell. The landlord attended the property again on 10 January 2024, to re-render the door frame, but the resident did not provide access. This led to the landlord cancelling the job, “pending further contact from the resident”. This was unfortunate and unavoidably delayed the landlord from completing the identified repairs.
83. The landlord attended the property again on 25 January 2024 and 7 February 2024, to install the air brick, and complete the damp and mould treatment. This shows that the landlord was endeavouring to complete the works, despite the difficulties with access. Again, the resident did not provide access.
84. The resident told the landlord on 16 February 2024, that she was moving and did not wish to schedule a new appointment. The landlord phoned the resident again on 19 February 2024, to try to progress the repair. The resident maintained that she did not want the repairs carried out, since she was moving at the end of the month. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s decision to pause works until the resident vacated the property, to be a pragmatic decision, given the timescale involved and the resident’s vulnerabilities.
85. In summary, the landlord took steps to assess the property for damp and mould and committed to putting things right, by carrying out repairs. The landlord was unable to complete the repairs in a timely manner, due to issues with access, which offers some mitigation. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have done more to support the resident, given her known vulnerabilities. It ought to have carried out a risk assessment to support the resident and to guide its own decision making.  

Overall

78. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord experienced significant difficulty gaining access to the property to carry out inspections, and to complete works, to address reports of damp, mould and condensation. While this offers some mitigation for delays completing identified works, the Ombudsman remains concerned that the landlord failed to provide the resident with a dehumidifier for 3 weeks, it did not show that it carried out a risk assessment, and it did not consider doing things differently in view of the resident’s mental health conditions.
79. When considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp, mould and condensation, and the landlord’s handling of associated repairs.

The landlord’s handing of repairs to the front door and the bathroom door

The front door

80. The resident reported the front entrance door was not properly closing on 15 November 2022. The landlord raised an emergency repair the same day to make the door safe. This was appropriate and was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. A temporary repair was completed 3 days later, which was reasonable. The job notes state that the resident requested a new front door, “as the old frame was broken at the bottom and there were chunks missing from the frame”.
81. A works order was raised on 18 November 2022, to renew the door as sections of the frame had “completely snapped”. However, upon reviewing the photographs from the job, the landlord decided that a door replacement was not required and a new works order was raised to repair the door jamb.
82. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the landlord’s decision not to renew the door. This is because the landlord was under no statutory or contractual obligation to renew the door if it could be repaired.

The bathroom door

83. The resident first asked the landlord to replace the bathroom door on 11 April 2023. The resident told the landlord that the former tenant had broken the door in the process of moving. A works order was raised the following day to inspect the door as routine works. It is unclear why the landlord raised a works order if repairs to the internal doors were the resident’s responsibility. But its approach was reasonable in view of the landlord’s commitment to provide an enhanced repairs service to its vulnerable residents. But to avoid uncertainty, the landlord ought to have informed the resident how the matter was to be resolved.
84. The landlord raised a new works order 9 working days later, to replace the bathroom door, as routine works. In accordance with the landlord’s repair’s policy, the job was marked as a recharge.
85. To progress the repair, the landlord left a voicemail for the resident on 5 May 2023, asking her to make an appointment. It is reasonable to assume that the resident did not receive this message, since she chased the landlord for an update on 22 May 2023. While the landlord’s job notes suggest that an appointment was made to renew the door on 9 June 2023, the Ombudsman has been unable to verify if this repair was completed. Either the repair was not completed or there was an issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
86. The resident told the landlord on 26 October 2023, that the bathroom door had been “taken off” by paramedics and needed to be replaced. The landlord’s contractor attended 10 working days later, to complete the job. The job notes state that the door was answered, but the resident was unavailable. This was unfortunate and led to an unavoidable delay in the landlord completing the repair.
87. Its contractor made a new appointment to replace the door on 15 November 2023, but the resident did not provide access. As is best practice, its contractor left a calling card. A new appointment was made for 22 November 2023. The job notes state that upon attendance, the resident refused to sign the recharge form and said she would complete the repair herself. Since internal doors were the resident’s responsibility to maintain and the bathroom door was not fire rated, this was the resident’s choice to make.
88. After the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of repairs to the bathroom door, the landlord exercised discretion and agreed to replace the door without charge. It was positive that the landlord took the opportunity to review the circumstances which led to the repair arising.
89. Shortly after this, the landlord raised a new works order to replace the bathroom door. An appointment was arranged to complete the repair on 7 December 2023, but the resident did not provide access. Further appointments were made for 3 January 2024 and 5 January 2024, which shows that the landlord was endeavouring to complete the job. However, the resident continued to deny access because her husband was unwell. While this was understandable, this caused additional unavoidable delay in the landlord replacing the door.
90. It is understood that the resident later decided not to progress the replacement bathroom door, after finding alternative accommodation with another social housing provider. Again, this was the resident’s choice to make.

Overall

91. The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door and the bathroom door.

The landlord’s handling record keeping and information management.

92. The Ombudsman notes that the resident did not always respond to voicemails left by the landlord’s contractors about repairs appointments. The resident did not consistently provide access when the landlord attended to complete jobs. This was the case for all the repairs investigated during this investigation.
93. It was positive that the landlord recognised at stage 2, that its contractor was prevented from making contact with the resident, because it did not have the resident’s correct contact details due to an administrative error. However, it was not possible to verify over what timescale this was an issue, which restricted the Ombudsman’s ability to fully assess the extent to which delays completing repairs were unreasonable. However, the Ombudsman took the view that this was likely to be a contributory factor in some of the repairs not being completed in a timely manner and jobs being prematurely cancelled.
94. The Ombudsman was encouraged that the landlord committed to investigating the reason for the administrative error, so this could be prevented in the future. But in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did not show that it fully recognised the full impact of this error on the resident, given her vulnerabilities.
95. Operationally, the landlord may have expected its contractor to liaise with the resident directly in respect of works orders and the management of repairs. However, while monitoring completion of the works orders, the landlord ought to have spotted a forming pattern of non-access. It ought to have noticed that jobs were being repeatedly cancelled “pending further contact from the resident”, and then investigated the reason for this. Had it done so, the landlord might have identified the issue with the resident’s contact details sooner. Thereafter, it could have made reasonable adjustments, to help support the resident when arranging works.
96. While the Ombudsman was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request. Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress.
97. When considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping and information management.

Determination

98. In accordance with paragraph 53.a of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to resident’s dissatisfaction about the condition of the property following a mutual exchange, was outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
99. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was maladministration in:

a.     The landlord’s response the resident’s concerns about fire safety, and its handling of repairs to the kitchen door.

b.     The landlord’s response to a rat infestation in the property.

c.      The landlord’s handling of repairs to a sewage pipe.

d.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp, mould, and condensation, and the landlord’s handling of associated repairs.

e.     The landlord’s record keeping and information management.

100. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about heating, and the landlord’s handling of associated repairs.
101. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handing of repairs to the front door and the bathroom door.

Orders

102. The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
103. The landlord must pay compensation of £1,350 directly to the resident. This compensation has been determined in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:

a.     £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, by its handling of repairs to the kitchen door.

b.     £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, by the landlord’s response to a rat infestation in the property.

c.      £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, by the landlord’s handling of repairs to a sewage pipe.

d.     £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about heating, and the landlord’s handling of associated repairs.

e.     £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp, mould, and condensation, and the landlord’s handling of associated repairs.

f.        £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, due to the landlord not ensuring the resident’s contact details were updated on its contractor system.

104. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

105. The landlord should consider formalising its approach to pest control in a policy document.